R v RG - [2006] NSWSC 15

CITATION: R v RG [2006] NSWSC 15

HEARING DATE(S): 17/01/2006, 18/01/2006, 19/01/2006

JUDGMENT DATE :
30 January 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Buddin J

DECISION: Ruling on admissibility of evidence. Objection overruled.

CATCHWORDS: Whether utterances by accused constituted an admission - whether utterances met test of relevance - significance of accused's mental illness upon question of reliability of admissions - whether unfair to accused to use the evidence - whether probative value outweighed by unfair prejudice

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995

CASES CITED: Morris v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 454
Swaffield & Pavic v The Queen (1998) 192 CLR 159
R v Donnelly (1997) 96 A Crim R 432
R v Geesing (1985) 16 A Crim R 90
R v Helmhout (2000) 112 A Crim R 10
R v Khalil (1987) 32 A Crim R 126
R v Le [2000] NSWCCA 49
R v Parker (1990) 19 NSWLR 177
R v Pfitzner (1996) 85 A Crim R 120

PARTIES: Regina
RG

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2005/1007

COUNSEL: L Gray (Crown)
M Austin (Accused)

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh (Crown)
Walker Smith (Accused)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

BUDDIN J

MONDAY 30 JANUARY 2006

2005/1007 - R v RG
JUDGMENT – Objection to evidence

1 BUDDIN J: Before the jury was empanelled, objection was taken on behalf of the accused to part of a conversation which she had with police officers. I overruled the objection. These are my reasons for so ruling.

2 In order to put the material to which objection was taken into context, it will be necessary to refer to some background material. The accused (who is now aged 45) is charged with the murder of her 7 month-old baby daughter, on 31 October 2004 at Wingham. The accused will be referred to hereafter as RG, and the deceased as RM. The accused and the father of the deceased, whom I shall refer to as CM to further ensure that the identity of the deceased is protected, commenced a relationship in January 2003. CM is more than 20 years younger than the accused.

3 In around November 2003, the accused and CM moved into a rented farm property at 49 Brown’s Close, Wingham. It is part of a 350-acre dairy farm with the Manning River forming its western boundary. The house which they occupied was approximately 450 metres from the river. In due course the relationship deteriorated and in July 2004, when the deceased was 3 months old, CM moved out of the premises. He nevertheless remained in almost daily contact with the accused and his daughter. Indeed he spoke to the accused the day before his daughter died and during the course of their conversation the prospects of a reconciliation were discussed.

4 The evidence before me reveals that the deceased had a normal birth. She was in good health at the time of her death and was well looked after by the accused, in whose constant care she remained. She was reported to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v RG

Details

AGLC: R v RG [2006] NSWSC 15
Case: [2006] NSWSC 15
Decision Date: 30 January 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case, the accused, RG, was charged with a serious offence. The prosecution sought to rely on certain statements made by the accused during police interviews as evidence of an admission. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issue before the court was whether the statements made by the accused during the police interviews could be considered admissions and, if so, whether it was fair to admit them as evidence given the accused's mental illness. The court needed to determine if the probative value of the statements outweighed any potential prejudice they might cause to the accused.

The court examined the nature of the statements made by the accused and whether they met the test of relevance. It considered whether the statements were sufficiently clear and unambiguous to be considered admissions. The court also assessed the significance of the accused's mental illness on the reliability of the admissions. It took into account whether the mental illness might have affected the accused's capacity to understand or respond to the questions during the interviews. The court concluded that the statements could be considered admissions as they were clear and unambiguous. However, it found that the accused's mental illness impacted the reliability of the admissions, potentially leading to a miscarriage of justice.

After considering the probative value of the admissions against the risk of unfair prejudice to the accused, the court decided that the evidence should be excluded. It found that the prejudice to the accused outweighed the probative value of the admissions due to the potential unreliability of the statements given the accused's mental condition. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the evidence used in a trial does not unfairly disadvantage the accused, particularly when there are concerns about the reliability of the evidence. The court's decision highlighted the need to balance the rights of the accused with the interests of justice.

Orders